L’embauche de bibliothécaires dans les municipalités québécoises : les méthodes d’évaluation des candidats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le cadre d’une recherche postdoctorale, nous avons mené une étude de cas pour décrire les méthodes d’évaluation des candidats bibliothécaires dans six municipalités québécoises. Nous avons requis l’avis des gestionnaires des ressources humaines, des évaluateurs et des recrues, ainsi que les documents produits dans le processus de dotation. L’entrevue est la méthode la plus répandue. Elle n’est pas toujours structurée et permet aux candidats de se mettre en valeur. La formulation des questions ne correspond pas toujours aux recommandations des experts. Les tests sont également utilisés pour évaluer les candidats, les plus redoutés étant les tests psychométriques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".